REPLY TO IMDAD ALI OF PAKISTAN

Submitted by DANIEL REDMOND (United States), Jan 16, 2008 at 01:43

Imdad, I think that by now the oft-repeated assertion that "Islam is a religion of peace" has ceased to be taken seriously by anyone with eyes, ears and a functioning brain. You make reference to "historical facts and factual realities." Recent historical facts have been that within the past two or three decades there have been literally dozens of vicious attacks perpetrated by Muslims upon innocent victims worldwide. These have included machine gun assaults upon civilians at airports, the bombing of American embassies in Africa, dozens (perhaps hundreds) of suicide bombings in the Middle East, the bombing of a commercial airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the hijacking---and subsequent deliberate flying into crowded office buildings---of more airliners in the United States.

Factual realities include passages within the Qu'ran that declare all non-Muslims to be "infidels" who must be either conquered or killed and the reality that, at least in modern times, while it is true most Muslims are not terrorists it is also true that most terrorists are Muslims. Can anyone deny or even doubt that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim?.....or that Mohammad Atta was a Muslim? Likewise Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and dozens of other infamous purveyors of death and destruction who have praised Allah while doing their dirty work.

For the record, I am not a supporter of the continued military occupation of Iraq. But if you want to deny that Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant, please tell it to someone else. I strongly suspect that Saddam bankrolled the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that at least some of the hijackers were trained at the infamous Salman Pak terrorist training center near Baghdad. [For more info on that subject please see the interview with former Iraqi Army Captain Sabah Khodada online. Just Google the name, it will get you to the report produced by 'Frontline' several years ago.]

You say that ".....it is not clear who attack twin towers."

Are you kidding? We know who the nineteen hijackers were and we know now where they were in the year or two prior to the attack, what flight schools they had attended, where they came from [the Middle East and mostly Saudi Arabia], and how they planned their operation. My own daughter, now a commercial pilot, was attending a flight school in Norman, Oklahoma in the late 1990s and remembered several belligerent and hostile Middle Eastern students at the school. After the events of September 11th she recognized three of them as being among the hijackers whose photos were placed in the newspapers. And it has been established as a matter of record that Mohammad Atta himself, ringleader of the group, had visited that flight school during the first week of July 2000.

Why did the United States cultivate a relationship with Osama bin Laden during the 1980s in Afghanistan? The answer is simple: Bin Laden was an organizer and fund raiser for the Mujahadeen who were fighting against the Soviet Union, the Cold War was still on and it seemed a good idea at the time. Turns out it was a bad idea in the long run but the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan, so initially the strategy worked. Your sentence that reads, "It is one million dollar, those who were trained by US how they became enemies of her" appears to be a reference to that situation but is too incoherent for me to comment on directly.

I recommend you take a look at Ali Sina's website called 'FaithFreedom.org' sometime to learn what some enlightened former Muslims are saying about Islam and its claims of being the "religion of peace." Dismiss my comments, if you will, as those of an ignorant Westerner, but how do you discount the claims of those who have themselves been raised as Muslims and turned against the faith?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".